ArticleBladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022
Accuracy of Inchworm Sign on Diffusion-Weighted MRI in Differentiating Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer.
Article in Bladder cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Stalk Sign in Bladder Cancer: CEUS Versus MRI.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Synergy of PET and MR imaging in the local and regional staging of bladder cancer.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInchworm sign is a finding on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI-MRI) and is used to better stratify T-staging in muscle invasive (MIBC) and non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). An uninterrupted low submucosal signal on DWI, defined as inchworm sign (IS), indicates NMIBC.
objectiveWe aimed to define the diagnostic accuracy of IS in primary bladder cancer, as well as find agreement between the urologists and the radiologist.
methodsBetween December 2018 and December 2020, we retrospectively analyzed 95 primary bladder cancer patients who had undergone multiparametric-MRI before transurethral resection. Patients with former bladder cancer history, tumors smaller than 10 mm, and MRI without proper protocol, as well as patients who did not attend follow-up, were excluded. In total, 71 patients' images were evaluated by a genitourinary specialist radiologist and two urologists. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of IS and VI-RADS in differentiating MIBC and NMIBC, and interreader agreement between the radiologist and urologists were analyzed.
resultsDuring follow-up, 38 patients (53.5%) were IS-positive, while 33 patients (46.5%) were negative. Among the 33 patients with negative IS, 14 patients (42.4%) had MIBC. Meanwhile, two out of the 38 IS-positive patients (5.3%) had MIBC (
conclusionThe absence of IS on DWI is useful in differentiating MIBC from NMIBC. It is a simple finding that can be interpreted by urologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.